- From: John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:13:27 +0100 (CET)
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Hi Ruben, > On November 9, 2015 at 11:05 PM Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> > wrote: > > > Hi John, > > > All it misses are some triples to link the retrieved resource to > > the items > > in the collection. > > > > <> hydra:member </items/45158567#id> , </items/35235179#id> , > > </items/10268448#id> . > > > Yes, but suppose there is then also > > </items/45158567#id> :x :y > > and even > > :y :z :q. > q: :r :s. > > Are these part of the data? Well certainly they are part of the response document if they are in it ;-) The answer probably lies in the eye of the beholder. > And if they are (not), how can I express that? > > This example shows that it is hard to put a border around a member. Yes it is, however seems the use cases we talk about are how to partition an RDF graph into sections/fragments to make it easier to understand/consume. > > > Basically seems like you are searching for recommendations/principles for > > publishing RDF data sets on the web. > > Not just datasets; mainly hypermedia responses, really (which may contain > parts of datasets). This depends on what you mean by "dataset". >From RDF1.1 spec the definition of an RDF dataset implies that any quads document can be considered as an RDF dataset. If we then need to say that a collection of quads documents can be considered as a dataset, this risks that we head down a semantic rabbit hole. > > > Unfortunately I think the ship has already sailed here in the > > broader RDF/SPARQL user base > > I wouldn't say that–many ships are leaking, and people are looking around ;-) LOL, so long as we are not sinking yet! > > > - relate a named graph to the containing document using rdfg:subGraphOf > > property > > Yeah; but the problem remains that, strictly speaking > <g> rdfg:subGraphOf <>. > and > <a> <b> <c> <g>. > are talking about different <g>s, according to the RDF 1.1 spec. The way I read it, would be more correct to say "could be talking about different <g>s". > So we're still looking for a mechanism to say: > when I name a graph <g>, and use it in subject/object position, > I really mean the same thing. Isn't Hydra CG in a position to make such a formal restriction for a certain context (publishing Linked Data on the web)? > > Best, > > Ruben John
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 08:14:05 UTC